Skip to main content

Which to put off first?

A lot of writers wish they could write full time. It certainly has a lot going for it - the freedom to choose when you do what, the time to think. But bear in mind it also means being self employed. Of itself, this isn't a bad thing either. I've been working for myself (technically for a company of which I'm the managing director) for over 10 years now, and you won't find me volunteering to go back to a 'real job.'

But it has its downside too. At the moment I'm trying to decide which to do first. The VAT (sales tax) or the company accounts. Or rather, which should I put off first. After all, I've a telephone interview this afternoon. That clearly needs preparing for. And I've some editing work to do. Maybe I can get away with just starting the accounts... Sigh.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Bob O'Hara15 October 2008 at 08:49

    Why don't you write a blog post inste...

    Ah.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg15 October 2008 at 13:01

    Caught in the act, guv.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous15 October 2008 at 20:31

    All I will say is that I think you have made exactly the right decision, not to return to taking an employer's dollar.

    Incidentally, you have your settings organised so that the only people who can comment on this blog are those with a Blogger account or those with an Open ID. If you change one preference in "settings" you will allow the rest of the world to comment also ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg16 October 2008 at 11:08

    Thanks Maxine, I'll change it - I'm still new to this blogging technology stuff.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more